Washington, D.C.—In a blockbuster ruling today, the Supreme Court
struck down Washington, D.C.’s thirty-year-old ban on the home
possession of functional firearms, including handguns. The Court
explained, “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep
and bear arms.” The Court continued, “[T]he enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the
table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used
for self-defense in the home.”

Plaintiff Dick Anthony Heller, an armed private security guard who
lives and works in Washington, D.C. but is prohibited from bringing his
weapon home at night said, “Today’s decision means that law-abiding
citizens in Washington, D.C. finally have a right to defend themselves
against violent criminals in their own homes. The Second Amendment says
that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
After thirty years of ignoring that right, the District will finally have
to respect it.”

Virtually alone among Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment had never
been clearly interpreted by the Supreme Court before today. The only
previous Supreme Court case directly addressing the Second Amendment,
United States v. Miller (1939)—though consistent with an individual
rights view of the Second Amendment—led some to believe mistakenly that
the right to keep and bear arms was not held by individuals. Today’s
decision squarely rejected that premise, explaining that “Miller stands
only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its
nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. . . . It is particularly
wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case
did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.”

“Americans enjoy an individual right to keep and bear arms,” said
Alan Gura, lead counsel for the Heller plaintiffs. “Because private gun
ownership is enshrined in our Bill of Rights, politicians cannot ban or
regulate guns out of existence. The Supreme Court fulfilled its duty to
protect individual liberty by striking down the city’s unconstitutional
laws.”

Co-counsel Robert Levy added, “Besides being blatantly
unconstitutional, the District’s gun ban has been totally ineffective.
Today’s ruling sends a clear message that the District may not attempt
to solve its crime problems by violating the rights of law-abiding
citizens to keep functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes
for lawful self defense.”

Clark Neily, who also represented the Heller plaintiffs, concluded, “This
case has always been about more than the right to own guns. It’s a case
about liberty and the government’s obligation to respect constitutional
rights that it might prefer to ignore. Today’s ruling is a tremendous
victory for freedom and the rule of law in America.”